Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

[BRiT]

Microsoft is bringing Minecraft to Chromebooks. The announcement comes as Microsoft seeks to convince regulators that it won’t shut off access to games like Call of Duty (or Minecraft!), and instead bring them to new platforms. Details here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1636034772702056452

 

[Deleted member 11852]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635989326202011655

These deals would carry a great deal more weight if Microsoft had a history of signing them outside of periods when under intense regulatory scrutiny, which some are interpreting as disingenuous gestures under regulatory duress.

If Microsoft had been signing such deals with Redfall and Starfield before the acquisition, this whole thing would have been approved months ago. But it currently looks signalling that Microsoft will only play nice when they really have no option to do otherwise. If the only time you make overt gestures to work with competitors is when the spotlight is on you, what message is that sending,

 

[see colon]

These deals would carry a great deal more weight if Microsoft had a history of signing them outside of periods when under intense regulatory scrutiny, which some are interpreting as disingenuous gestures under regulatory duress.

If Microsoft had been signing such deals with Redfall and Starfield before the acquisition, this whole thing would have been approved months ago. But it currently looks signalling that Microsoft will only play nice when they really have no option to do otherwise. If the only time you make overt gestures to work with competitors is when the spotlight is on you, what message is that sending,

Microsoft started publishing it's PC games on Steam en masse in 2019. The Bethesda deal was announced in 2020 and closed in 2021, and I don't remember them being under any scrutiny IRT storefronts and exclusivity. Also, they have had a history of releasing their productivity apps on nearly ever platform.

 

[SmooTh]

CMA published responses to the provisional findings from
Microsoft
Activision
Sony
4JStudios
Market Participant B
Market Participant C
Market Participant D
Market Participant E
Market Participant F

 

[BRiT]

Microsoft has submitted responses to the CMA's preliminary findings, and says Sony's position is "a self-serving attempt to protect its dominant market position." Microsoft also claims the CMA has made a "fundamental and obvious error" in its impact calculations.

the CMA has published responses from 6 different games companies to the Microsoft Blizzard deal in the UK. All 6 believe the deal should go ahead. One company even says it's likely to create a "sorely needed" level playing ground between Xbox and PlayStation

https://twitter.com/x/status/1636341007481446401

https://twitter.com/x/status/1636343877664636934

 

[mrcorbo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1636341007481446401

https://twitter.com/x/status/1636343877664636934

I went and looked at all the 3rd party responses that were published and was pretty surprised that they were all in favor of the deal going through. Obviously there were not many responses submitted, but if there was anyone with a real problem with the deal, I would have expected them to be just as motivated as those in favor to send a response. Is MS's political game just better than Sony's or does this really reflect the sentiment of the industry in the UK?

 

[mrcorbo]

These deals would carry a great deal more weight if Microsoft had a history of signing them outside of periods when under intense regulatory scrutiny, which some are interpreting as disingenuous gestures under regulatory duress.

If Microsoft had been signing such deals with Redfall and Starfield before the acquisition, this whole thing would have been approved months ago. But it currently looks signalling that Microsoft will only play nice when they really have no option to do otherwise. If the only time you make overt gestures to work with competitors is when the spotlight is on you, what message is that sending,

That the system is working?

 

[troyan]

I went and looked at all the 3rd party responses that were published and was pretty surprised that they were all in favor of the deal going through. Obviously there were not many responses submitted, but if there was anyone with a real problem with the deal, I would have expected them to be just as motivated as those in favor to send a response. Is MS's political game just better than Sony's or does this really reflect the sentiment of the industry in the UK?

Short term third party benefits from it if Microsoft would withdraw AB games from Playstation.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Microsoft started publishing it's PC games on Steam en masse in 2019.

Which has what to do with Microsoft releasing its IP on rival consoles or streaming platforms? This is what what is driving the concerns, including the UK CMA's concern that Microsoft decided, and being unable to demonstrate otherwise, that removing certain acquired IP from the Zenimax acquisition was not motivated by a despite to reduce competition from rival streaming platform Geforce Now.

That the system is working?

I don't know what 'system' is proven to be working. If entities only doing the right them when under observation, then you're encouraging the creation of a system that keeps everybody under observation all of the time. That isn't how the UK and EU acquisition and merger processes work.

If you can't trust an entity to do the right thing, without being under constant observation then the regulator decisions is going to be negative. Governments don't want. along-term job of keeping industry 'honest'. It's simply not a good use of taxpayer money.

Sony's desperation is increasingly bonkers but that doesn't make Microsoft position any more compelling.

 

[BRiT]

MLex reports that the lawsuit from gamers has been dismissed and they’ll need to redraft their complaint.

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley raised concerns about a lack of evidence/numbers, precise argument about the harm arising from the deal and the definition of the relevant markets.

 

[iroboto]

These deals would carry a great deal more weight if Microsoft had a history of signing them outside of periods when under intense regulatory scrutiny, which some are interpreting as disingenuous gestures under regulatory duress.

If Microsoft had been signing such deals with Redfall and Starfield before the acquisition, this whole thing would have been approved months ago. But it currently looks signalling that Microsoft will only play nice when they really have no option to do otherwise. If the only time you make overt gestures to work with competitors is when the spotlight is on you, what message is that sending,

I would say this is from a consumer perspective. Yea it's a not a good look that the only time you do something is when you want something. But I don't know if that's necessarily the case here.

I don't know what 'system' is proven to be working. If entities only doing the right them when under observation, then you're encouraging the creation of a system that keeps everybody under observation all of the time. That isn't how the UK and EU acquisition and merger processes work.

If you can't trust an entity to do the right thing, without being under constant observation then the regulator decisions is going to be negative. Governments don't want. along-term job of keeping industry 'honest'. It's simply not a good use of taxpayer money.

Sony's desperation is increasingly bonkers but that doesn't make Microsoft position any more compelling.

So the challenge here is that do you want to invest everything into doing something, go to regulation and then find out that's not what they wanted?
I think for any business undergoing scrutiny from regulators, it may be best to address what they ask to be addressed instead of preemptively guessing what needs to be done because at the very least, it's the shortest path and most cost efficient. I think a business signing all sorts and tons of deals only to find out regulators will withhold the merger for another reason, is likely why a business wouldn't approach it this way. It may look bad for the reasons posted above, but like any sports game, you're just going to play the game, and if the referee doesn't call foul, on you, you keep going. If they do, then you have to address it. If every player called their self fouls, they wouldn't be on the team for very long, or people would learn quickly to stop that behaviour.

I think we're seeing all these deals, because that's precisely what the requirements are from EU

 

[see colon]

Which has what to do with Microsoft releasing its IP on rival consoles or streaming platforms? This is what what is driving the concerns, including the UK CMA's concern that Microsoft decided, and being unable to demonstrate otherwise, that removing certain acquired IP from the Zenimax acquisition was not motivated by a despite to reduce competition from rival streaming platform Geforce Now.

Steam is a rival storefront to Microsoft's PC storefront and Steam has a streaming option via remote play.

 

[SmooTh]

Microsoft offers EU remedies seeking OK on Activision deal

Microsoft Corp has offered remedies in an attempt to gain EU antitrust approval for its $69 billion acquisition of Activision , a European Commission filing showed on Friday.

www.reuters.com

The EU competition enforcer, which did not provide details in line with its policy, will now seek feedback from rivals and customers before making its decision by May 22.

The company is likely to win EU clearance for the deal with such licensing deals and other behavioural remedies, sources have told Reuters while the jury is still out on whether the UK competition enforcer will do the same.

New report from MLex:

- Microsoft committed to EU regulators last night to make Activision Blizzard's catalog of games, including Call of Duty, available to rival cloud gaming services according to MLex.

- The offer does not include concessions to ease EU concerns over how the takeover might impact Sony's PlayStation or Google's PC operating system, indicating that the EC has narrowed its objections to the deal to focus on cloud gaming.

- The 10-year remedy proposal follows the template of recent deals announced by Microsoft with cloud gaming providers Nvidia, Boosteroid and Ubitus.

- The EC is consulting market players on Microsoft's cloud gaming offer and now it has until May 22 to issue a final decision.

 

[mrcorbo]

I don't know what 'system' is proven to be working. If entities only doing the right them when under observation, then you're encouraging the creation of a system that keeps everybody under observation all of the time. That isn't how the UK and EU acquisition and merger processes work.

If you can't trust an entity to do the right thing, without being under constant observation then the regulator decisions is going to be negative. Governments don't want. along-term job of keeping industry 'honest'. It's simply not a good use of taxpayer money.

Sony's desperation is increasingly bonkers but that doesn't make Microsoft position any more compelling.

You can't. Full stop. The profit motive imperative that drives corporate decision making and the public interest imperative are not fully compatible. Sometimes they align, and that's great, but when they don't you need (impartial) oversight to bridge the gap. The system that I allude to is one that, collectively, makes pursuing individual corporate profit at all cost a less lucrative path to follow than serving the general public interest.

If we lived in an ideal world where the market worked perfectly and all actors operated with perfect information and fully in their own interest, there would be no need for oversight since consumers would shun companies (PR and marketing be damned) that worked against their interest and the best way to profit would be to "do the right thing". We don't live in that world, sadly, so we need intervention. Where the problems come in, though, is when that impartial oversight is not truly impartial or itself operates with imperfect information such that it makes decisions not in the general public interest.

So, in my opinion, a corporation being incentivized to engage in consumer friendly behavior due to the presence and actions of institutions that exist to achieve that result is the system working as it should.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Steam is a rival storefront to Microsoft's PC storefront and Steam has a streaming option via remote play.

Yes and no. Yes in that Microsoft also operate a storefront but no in that Microsoft's storefront is not any kind of rival because it's borderline insignificant. And this is kind of the point, sometimes you're big and important enough for customers to come to you but for most you need to go where the customers are, hence why Microsoft publish on Steam.

Of course, if this deal is approved, Microsoft could be at the point where they could stop selling all of their owned content on other stores (but keeping it available and updated for those who have already bought it)), and keep new sales on their store. Again, that's one of the concerns raised by both the EU UK CMA.

So, in my opinion, a corporation being incentivized to engage in consumer friendly behavior due to the presence and actions of institutions that exist to achieve that result is the system working as it should.

Right, however regulators do not want to have keep such a corporation incentivised through long-term remedies. And corporations really shouldn't need to act honest out of fear. Ergo, we have the simpler reality of the way the regulators operate which is when companies have a demonstrable history of acting in good faith with regards to competition, that's a positive. When companies do not, Microsoft's unfortunately positions, that's a negative.

 

[mrcorbo]

Right, however regulators do not want to have keep such a corporation incentivised through long-term remedies. And corporations really shouldn't need to act honest out of fear. Ergo, we have the simpler reality of the way the regulators operate which is when companies have a demonstrable history of acting in good faith with regards to competition, that's a positive. When companies do not, Microsoft's unfortunately positions, that's a negative.

I question the relevance of any corporation's history as a predictor of future action given the potential for changes in the leadership and the investor community that can take place over time.

 

[see colon]

Yes and no. Yes in that Microsoft also operate a storefront but no in that Microsoft's storefront is not any kind of rival because it's borderline insignificant. And this is kind of the point, sometimes you're big and important enough for customers to come to you but for most you need to go where the customers are, hence why Microsoft publish on Steam.

Steam's 70%+ market share is large, of course. How does that compare to Sony's market share in the EU again?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I question the relevance of any corporation's history as a predictor of future action given the potential for changes in the leadership and the investor community that can take place over time.

And I would agree with you, for many corporations leadership may change often but Microsoft is not such a company. Satya Nadella has been there for nine years and all of the relevant examples of recent behaviour that the EU and UK CMA are using an examples of behaviour have come under his leadership, and that of Xbox head Phil Spencer.

When making predictions about the future, you dismiss the known just because the future is unknown. The likelihood of a a mass senior management wipe and strategy pivot at Microsoft looks incredibly incredibly low.

Steam's 70%+ market share is large, of course. How does that compare to Sony's market share in the EU again?

I'm not following you. You used Microsoft selling games on other stores in response to me saying that Microsoft are only signing deals with rivals under regulator scrutiny. It's not, when consumers refuse to use the Microsoft Store then Microsoft have to sell in stores that consumers happily use. What does PlayStation's market share have to do with any of that?

 

[mrcorbo]

And I would agree with you, for many corporations leadership may change often but Microsoft is not such a company. Satya Nadella has been there for nine years and all of the relevant examples of recent behaviour that the EU and UK CMA are using an examples of behaviour have come under his leadership, and that of Xbox head Phil Spencer.

When making predictions about the future, you dismiss the known just because the future is unknown. The likelihood of a a mass senior management wipe and strategy pivot at Microsoft looks incredibly incredibly low.

Specifics of this case aside, I think that oversight, not just in moments like this, but continual oversight is the only way to ensure corporations don't engage in anticompetitive practices.

This can swing both ways. Even if a corporation has a spotless record in the past and is considered a trusted entity in the market, any number of factors can cause that to change. I have no problem with a corporation only acting in a cooperative manner when subject to oversight because I don't trust any corporation to not engage in anticompetitive practices when given the chance and when not subject to oversight.

You don't dismiss the known, but you can't treat the unknown as if it has no weight when making your decisions either. You have to factor in what might be true and, when making choices for the future, what might become true.

 

[Nesh]

Specifics of this case aside, I think that oversight, not just in moments like this, but continual oversight is the only way to ensure corporations don't engage in anticompetitive practices.

This can swing both ways. Even if a corporation has a spotless record in the past and is considered a trusted entity in the market, any number of factors can cause that to change. I have no problem with a corporation only acting in a cooperative manner when subject to oversight because I don't trust any corporation to not engage in anticompetitive practices when given the chance and when not subject to oversight.

You don't dismiss the known, but you can't treat the unknown as if it has no weight when making your decisions either. You have to factor in what might be true and, when making choices for the future, what might become true.

It is impractical and almost impossible to expect successfull and continuous oversight of every mega corporation at every possible level that can implement successfull measures.
The mere task of checking MS's acquisition, and all related plans is time consuming itself. Let alone being constantly monitoring, then going through the process of acquiring all the info, going to courts, re-investigating, waiting for a conclusion, and measures taken based on that conclusion, that may be too late or inadequate to fix the issue.